Hi,
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> cached_allocation = NULL;
>
> repeat:
> spin_lock();
> result = try_to_find_existing();
> if (!result) {
> if (!cached_allocation) {
> spin_unlock();
> cached_allocation = allocate_block();
> goto repeat;
> }
> result = cached_allocation;
> add_to_datastructures(result);
> }
> spin_unlock();
> return result;
>
> This is quite standard, and Linux does it in many places. It doesn't have
> to be complex or ugly.
No problem with that.
> Also, I don't see why you claim the current get_block() is recursive and
> hard to use: it obviously isn't. If you look at the current ext2
> get_block(), the way it protects most of its data structures is by the
> super-block-global lock. That wouldn't work if your claims of recursive
> invocation were true.
I just rechecked that, but I don't see no superblock lock here, it uses
the kernel_lock instead. Although Al could give the definitive answer for
this, he wrote it. :)
> The way the Linux MM works, if the lower levels need to do buffer
> allocations, they will use GFP_BUFFER (which "bread()" does internally),
> which will mean that the VM layer will _not_ call down recursively to
> write stuff out while it's already trying to write something else. This is
> exactly so that filesystems don't have to release and re-try if they don't
> want to.
>
> In short, I don't see any of your arguments.
Then I must have misunderstood Al. Al?
If you were right here, I would see absolutely no reason for the current
complexity. (Me is a bit confused here.)
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
